Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Good points, remember that there were entirely different design requirements at play here.
When the Ak-47 was designed. The average Soviet Conscript was likely to be poorly educated, most likely a kid off of a collective farm. The length in service was iirc about 2 years, and the training was rudimentary at best. Usually at the end of the 2 year period (a major hole) that conscript returned to the farm or got a job in a factory. The Soviets really struggled with the quality of their conscripts. The Sergeants, the NCO backbone of Western Militarizes, was a completely different thing in the Red Army. He was a conscript who was selected because he was deemed to be a little smarter, but more politically reliable, and went to a Sergent school to receive specialized training in unit tactics and leadership.
Because of this the AK was designed to be a simple weapon to aim and fire, and maintain, and designed to be rugged. This is why its the most successful export weapon ever created. Because poor armies with poor training and discipline suddenly had a weapon that matched their level of training.
The American NCO was different. First of all, because they were better educated, and better trained. The average hitch was twice as long as the Soviet conscripts and lavish dollars were spent on training and gear. Because of that the 16 was deemed as a more technically advanced, more accurate weapon, however because of the higher training it could be more mechanical in nature, and it was acceptable to have a more complex cleaning and maintenance protocol. It was also ok to allow the average solider to be able to handle things like site calibration. The Soviet Solder didn't care about that, they would just fire until the enemy went down (Spray and Pray). What the American's did get was a more delicate weapon that used more advanced materials and didn't have the rugged abilities of the AK-47.
You are right about one thing, the heavier rounds of the AK were through and through. The M-16 using the lighter 5.56 and had a light speed muzzle velocity compared to the heavier rounds of the AK. This did cause a problem though.
The lighter round did tend to tumble, which didn't help in the jungles of Vietnam, where the accuracy of the weapon dropped dramatically as it hit light obstructions that would cause the round to tumble. Meanwhile the heavier rounded AK was excellent at shooting through heavier obstructions in a straight path.
The other important points is in manufacturing. Soviet manufacturing and materials were notoriously poor from the 50's through to the 80's due to the Soviets reliance on factory quota's their quality control sucked. They were way behind on design technologies and while their engineers were top notch, and their designers were as well, the average worker was poorly trained and taught numbers over quality.
The American engineers would work with exotic materials had better design technologies and American manufacturing whether automated or man provided was just superior. Therefore the Americans could manufacture what was considered to be a space aged weapon in the 60's.
Ok, the FNC1A1 - I loved the weapon except for one thing, the weight to carry it. If I remember right a FN weighed about 11 pounds. It was a beast to carry, and because it was long and heavy it was poorly suited to urban combat, it was tough to get the weapons around whereas the AK and M-16 were both excellent at urban and close quarter snap shots. I loved the iron sites on the FN and they were easy to adjust and they had the duel iron site setting (Big hole, small hole). For some reason my accuracy with that weapon was off of the charts. I also found I could disassemble it, clean it and snap it back together in very few minutes. As well I didn't ever worry about losing springs or pieces in the dark.
|